User talk:AussieLegend/Archive 19

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

→

Regarding Green Rain

Hi AussieLegend (yet again)

Regarding the green colour of rain, I personally believe for all Australian articles they should be green, on the basis that it looks better and to better distinguish the Aussie articles. I am yet trying to find your 'consensus' on the green rain colour, but I have found an edit of you adding the green colour to the Sydney weatherbox

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ASydney_weatherbox&diff=500763377&oldid=500763181

anyway, cheers and have a good day/evening!

Luxure (talk) 07:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

That was a good faith restoration. Bidgee added the colour here and it was deleted in the next edit.[1] Green seems an unnatural colour for rain. I associate green with trees, blue with water etc. Hail laden clouds have a green tinge, but hail isn't liquid form. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

But does not it look better than the blue? And it also contrasts to the record low temperature which often approaches the blue territory. Luxure (talk) 09:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the record lows in Newcastle, Sydney, Melbourne and Hobart I don't see any conflict with blue for rain and no, I really don't think it looks better.--AussieLegend (✉) 10:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

still prefer the greenrain ....

List of The Big Bang Theory characters

Greetings. There are a couple of things about your edits that I think I should bring to your talk page rather than the article talk page.

First, WP:BOLD? Are you sure? Did you mean WP:BOLDFACE? In any case, I don't see how it can be construed as forbidding boldface in list item head phrase. IMHO, it is just good sense.

Second, you said "we list characters by their name as credited". A link to the policy is appreciated.

Third, have you studied WP:HONORIFIC?

Last, why aren't you an admin?

Cheers. Fleet Command (talk) 06:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Be careful, Aussie. Last time someone asked me why I wasn't an admin, I was (deservingly) humiliated by the entire Wikipedia community. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

That is supposed to be a mood-changer question. I don't mind if it is ignored. Fleet Command (talk) 07:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I meant MOS:BOLD. That section of the article is filled with people who probablay shouldn't be listed. Not all characters need to be listed. If we eliminated those who shouldn't be there, bolding wouldn't be a problem. Listing characters by credited name is something that is "just done", the way many things are done. It's a general, but not formal, consensus rooted in consistency with WP:COMMONNAME. If you care to open a discussion at WT:TV, I'd be surprised if you couldn't get a formal consensus. Yes, I've studied WP:HONORIFIC, but remember we're talking about fictional characters here, and fiction doesn't, and sometimes can't, follow real-world paradigms. The fact that Leonard's mother is a doctor is something that we are reminded about pretty much every time she appears. Note that WP:HONORIFIC says "in general". It does not mandate that honorifics aren't used because there are times when use of an honorific is helpful or otherwise justified. Why aren't I an admin? I was asked last year. Unfortunately, family issues prevented me going to RfA then and every time I think I'm ready, something else seems to come up. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I am not saying you are wrong or anything but first, I am going to have to ask you for a source regarding said credits. Show itself only lists guests' names; it credit's Leonard's mother only as Beverly (contrary to your assertion). However, we have WP:MOS, which explicitly states that the article must maintain internal consistency regarding optional styles. If the credit listings itself does not have a consistent listing style, so help me, it goes against our policy. I don't have any strong feelings about honorifics here but just so you know, every time I see her, I am, above all else, reminded of her being obnoxious and incapable understanding the most basic concepts of life. Her being a doctor does not have sufficient due weight here.

I am all for removing characters lacking due weight. (I see no encyclopedic value in listing a character only because she once shouted "Security!" in the whole series.) But due weight has nothing to do with the optional style of a definition list. A definition list can be bulleted, flat or cascading (using ; and :). The article had chosen flat and per MOS:STABILITY, we must stick to it. All you did was to dismantle the list format. To top it off, MOS:BOLD (or WP:BOLDFACE or whatever...) actually supports doing so.

Fleet Command (talk) 22:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

If you want a good source for character names, try any one of the press releases. The Futon Critic reproduces these for each episode.[2] Note that the release linked to, which I picked at random, actually credits Leonard's mother's full name. The issue of bolding was brought up recently at WT:TV. Note that discussion refers to both MOS:BOLD and WP:CASTLIST, the latter explicitly stating that "actors and roles should not be bolded". --AussieLegend (✉) 14:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I am looking at your source; no Dr. or Doctor. Also the main characters in the article don't correspond to this source. It says "Leonard", "Sheldon", etc. And still, it does not resolve the consistency issue; it makes it worse. Maybe I'll do a bold edit and then you can compare and decide.

The discussion about Hawak Kamay is not discussing consequential conversion of a flat definition list to flat paragraphs. That list already has bullets and the boldface text consisted of almost 50% of the text. It was plain gross. I'd have removed it anyway. In our list, the boldface formatting established the existence of a definition list and consisted of only the name portion (a couple of words) at the beginning of each paragraphs. I feel our time is better spent discussing which character lacks due weight for inclusion.

Fleet Command (talk) 03:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

When determining how to treat fictional characters, the MOS can't preempt every situation, so we have to use common sense when deciding how to list them. As far as The Big Bang Theory is concerned, there's a long-standing agreement to list the main characters (which includes Leslie Winkle as she was in the series from the first season) with their last names, in line with the way we treat real people. This seems only reasonable since their last names have been used so very many times in the series. Bernadette is an exception, as Rostenkowski has been used very rarely and Rostenkowski-Wolowitz was used just once, almost in passing. Regardless of your opinion on what the Hawak Kamay was discussing, MOS:BOLD and WP:CASTLIST still apply to the Big Bang Theory character article. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree right until the last sentence which contradicted everything you said about common sense. Plus, MOS:BOLD says boldface for definition lists is okay. so, your last sentence not only invalidated everything you made so far~~, but now makes me think you are really scatterbrained. (Oh, well, I guess now I know why you are not an admin.)~~ You send way too many mixed messages.

Well, I guess I should just use my retirement benefit and not to worry about this whole mess. Whatever. Cheers. Fleet Command (talk) 05:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Pretty sure you don't get to come out of retirement to slap other users with incivil zingers like this. I know Aussie doesn't need a defense team, but this shit popped up in my watchlist and it is irritating as fuck to read. Whether you continue this discussion or abandon it, please do try to be classy, FleetCommand. And for the record, adminship isn't a reward, it's yet another volunteer position that comes with more buttons, and not everybody wants that. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The more uncivil course of action would have been to leave it uncommented; it'll blindside him in an RfA, where irrelevant people dig dirt on the candidate. Civility is far more sophisticated than just an automated word filter. I didn't even revert him, although per WP:BRD, I could. FYI, "retirement" is not "death"; it marks a voluntary reduction in my editing pattern, scope and extent. The handling admin didn't have a problem with this; so, I don't think I'd care if you do. Fleet Command (talk) 05:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make a right. The simple fact is that you should not have been uncivil in the first place. You are well aware of that requirement. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I get that people have trouble apologizing to others, but making up crap like the I-was-incivil-for-your-own-good argument is sub-adult.

Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I humbly apologize for commenting on your person. Even though the comment was not a profanity, I acknowledge that I must comment on the contribution, not contributor. In my willingness to express my very high level of disagreement with your message, which I perceive as self-contradictory, using a comment on person was not warranted and I acknowledge that I must have used other ways to express said strong level of disagreement. Fleet Command (talk) 08:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Did you bother to check the example used by MOS:BOLD? Compare that to the revision of List of The Big Bang Theory characters that incorporated the bold. They're completely different types of lists. The bolding used in List of The Big Bang Theory characters was inappropriate and not supported by WP:CASTLIST, so regardless of your interpretation (or misinterpretation) of MOS:BOLD, it shouldn't have been bolded. It's really that simple. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

As a matter of fact I did. Their only difference is the presence of a line break between head phrase and description. (The technicality behind implementing this difference is not really the concern, though you might want to read the fineprint in H:DL.) The former is called an indented definition list. The latter is called a flat definition list. Even if you considered a flat definition list inappropriate, the more appropriate course of action was to convert it to an indented list. Fleet Command (talk) 05:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The difference between the two lists is not as simple as you seem to think. It uses a semi-colon to form a pseudo-heading, which MOS:ACCESS warns should not be done.[3] The resolution that MOS:ACCESS suggests, using {{TOC limit}} is not appropriate as it would suppress the main character names. Not using TOC limit would result in an excessively long TOC. An indented list simply is not appropriate for the minor characters or notable guests sections. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

What you are showing me is a not-to-do... but also one that I never proposed. i.e. I never proposed using pseudo-heading. In addition, I contend that what you did (flattening the list) was also a not-to-do. Fleet Command (talk) 08:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

FC, I was just being impish. :) Aussie, I think you'd make for a fine admin should you ever endure your RfA. From my failure I learned that my AfD nominations and votes became a big deal to the community--I hadn't performed enough WP:BEFORE due diligence. I also haven't created much content, which put off many. I'll shut up now coz it ain't about me. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

As someone at your RfA said, if they don't get you for one thing, they'll get you for another. I haven't participated in a lot of RfAs and I have 30,000 semi-automated edits (I use Twinkle) - I've seen both of those as issues people have raised at RfAs. Several people I trust actually warned me away from RfA. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

One thing that was especially shitty, is that as I was getting hammered by admins and other users who had never worked with me, my instinct was to reach out to some of the people I'd been working with constructively, but then you start worrying about forum shopping and other nonsense. It seems to me that adminship is about trust, and that should be it. In my RfA you see people saying basically, "well he was on the wrong side of a buncha AfD nominations, so clearly he's going to continue that trend like an asshole instead of learning from his mistakes." That demonstrates clear lack of trust based on an irrational expectation. Come to think of it, maybe responding to AfD questions with shortcuts is the best way to go! "I don't have confidence in his ability to wield the mop." "Whoops, sorry pal, that's WP:SOAPBOXING based on WP:CRYSTAL." Zing! "The new King of Wikipedia has been crowned!" Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Lost Girl // Plot section

Thanks for finally! removing the Season 5 sub-section. I would have done it long ago but left it to your discretion as the Admin. Forewarned is forearmed: anons who don't bother to look at the entirety of the article and see that a Season 5 section exists under *Production and Development* will add the sub-section back into the Plot area. It will be one mole after another that will need to be wacked until we know the storyline of Season 5. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 07:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

American Dad

Why did you revert my edits, although it may have been sloppy, I was going to go back and fix it after I had mainly the new stuff done. Four of us over at the AD talk page pretty much agreed on switching to the fewer-number season. Spongey253 (talk) 16:50, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I have explained on your talk page that I don't understand what you're tring to do with the American Dad seson articles, since you haven't bothered explaining your edits with any episode summaries, but I have reverted the changes as some seem vandalistic at best, such as removing valid images,[4] and changing season numbers in the infobox.[5] Your edits at List of American Dad! episodes broke the entire article, as well as removing MOS:ACCESS/MOS:DTT compliance, so it seems that you don't actually know what you are doing. You need to explain your edits and ensure that changes are backed up by reliable sources. The discussion at Talk:American Dad! seems focussed on the 3 recently aired episodes, not entirely reorgansing every article! --AussieLegend (✉) 16:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

If you had looked near the bottom, we have had a conflict on moving to the fewer-season method. The long-season method (which is on AD's pages) was kinda going off track as TBS's season was 11 and the AD pages were moving it to twelve. I proposed we switch to the fewer-season so that TBS gets it's 11th season. The three episode dispute was in the past as we were deciding what to add them to: either the 20 episode season or a season by it's on. The reason I was changing the List of AD pages and each season page was because most of us at the talk page agreed on switching to the fewer. I admit it was sloppy, but I was going to fix it. But since you reverted the edits, and probably would revert them again, if I changed it back.

I also noticed your responding to the talk page. I like the idea of making FOX and TBS's Season 11, but it may confuse people. Guess we could wait until the TBS season premieres because it could always add on to the back of the three episodes. Thanks. Spongey253 (talk) 20:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

A beer for you!

You will need one of these after deleting all of my single-use templates. Well Done! Luxure (talk) 10:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

About the NCIS franchise DVD release dates tables.

Hello, AussieLegend?

You don't remember me, my name is IceColdKillerz103. I have a very important question to ask you. Is there any chance that the DVD release dates for the NCIS franchise articles can be possibly re-posted again on Wikipedia? Because I think it's not only fair that other users on the website can post newly DVD release dates on the tables for NCIS, NCIS: Los Angeles, and NCIS New Orelans in the future. Is there any chance you can revert this back the way it was before? Because I really admire the DVD release dates tables that is posted on the site, and I think it is more relevant for more viewers and Wikipedia users to explore on. Listen, if you say no, that's all right. I'm not trying to give you a hard time to do it. But, please think about it, and you can discuss it with me. Please write me back on my talk page immediately when you get this message as soon as possible, thanks.

PS: One more thing, I want to apologize about my unruly editing with the imdbname links and templates, and I was hoping you can forgive me for what I did wrong. Thanks!

IceColdKillerz103 (talk) 09:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:TVOVERVIEW, home video releases don't belong in series overview tables. NCIS and NCIS: Los Angeles have articles dedicated to home media, List of NCIS home video releases and List of NCIS: Los Angeles home video releases respectively. Both of these are linked to from their respective series articles and Template:NCIS television. We don't really need more listings of either and, obviously, the listings haven't been removed from Wikipedia. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

NCIS Season 12 Main Article.

Hello, AussieLegend?

It's me again, IceColdKillerz103. Listen, I have a question to ask you. Has anyone or any various users on Wikipedia are planning on creating the NCIS (season 12) main article yet? Because don't you think it's about time to create the NCIS Season 12 article, as so as the NCIS: Los Angeles Season 6 main article too, don't you think? Please write me back on my talk page right away when you get this message as soon as possible, thanks.

IceColdKillerz103 (talk) 02:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmm

I think that you're accusing me of being a sock puppet - that's a personal attack. Please stop, or you could be blocked by an admin. All I said was that Panda may be influencing your edits. 173.48.149.83 (talk) 19:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL be buggered. You accused me of sockpuppetry you idiot.[6] For fuck sake! --AussieLegend (✉) 19:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

NCIS season 12 and NCIS: Los Angeles season 6 main articles.

Hello, AussieLegend?

Listen, you didn't get my message until I decided to write you back on your talk page again. Is there any chance if any users or you can create the NCIS (season 12) and NCIS: Los Angeles (season 6) main articles by now? Please contact me right away when you get this message as soon as possible if you decide to create the main articles, thanks.

IceColdKillerz103 (talk) 07:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I did see your message but gt distracted. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Two and a half men deletion

Sorry, thought it was a mistake and deleted it. D Eaketts (talk) 11:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

TV ratings

Hello. I had a question involving TV ratings. I looked through the ratings for the past week. It seems like NCIS was #4 overall. But this includes two NFL games at #1 and #2. Do you count those games when saying it's ranking throught the week? If not, then NCIS would be #2 and TBBT #1. SAJ (T) 04:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know. I try to stay away from ratings figures as I don't gie them much credit. In Australia the method they use for collecting ratings is farcical at best. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Am I nuts?

Am I nuts, or does this seem out of place? The wikilinks drive me nuts, but I don't think I've ever seen a random quote in a synopsis. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Definitely out of place. I saw something similar in another series (main and season articles!) recently and deleted those because they add nothing. I've deleted this one too. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't get that kid/grown-ass-man. It's like Memento. He wakes up every day and forgets everything he's ever learned about editing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't aware he'd learned anything. Sadly, he's not the only one. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

American Dad

Sigh! You are 100% correct Aussie but nothing seems to get through to these three "legislators" who seem to think that they are the governing party of the American Dad article. Honestly, that's why I removed myself from the discussion altogether. They began to take on this mentality of "we have the time to repeat our case the most so that's consensus and we win." Well, that and the fact that they were being intolerant of different views and referring to opposing viewpoints and options with pejoratives like "retarded" and "stupid," then trashing editors for not agreeing with them.

But to answer your question, you are exactly right and I have made that clear on the talk page. By the way, they're were multiple editors who stated they're disagreement with these three earlier on in that discussion. They just haven't continually returned to the discussion to reiterate themselves until they're blue in the face, which they criticize everyone for. I have been criticized multiple times by the three of them for not returning to reiterate my stance.

For whatever reason, these three have taken that to equate to a consensus. You and Cyphod are 100% correct. Hope this help! AmericanDad86 (talk) 15:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

My experience is that when editors such as yourself are bullied out of a discussion, the bullies have free reign to do what they want. Please stay involved. The more editors there are, the more chance we have of forcing a reasonable, balanced discussion. And you won't be alone. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Piggybacking on Aussie's comment, I would also urge you to please elevate yourself above your frustrations. I feel you, and I know it's insanely difficult to stay cool when passions fly, especially when you've previously been the voice of the minority opinion. That's one of the reasons why I asked WikiProject Television to become involved. But if you want to maintain a morally superior position, you can't stoop to "selling woof tickets". Deep breath, AD86!

Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Great points you guys make, Aussie and Cyphoid. Very great points. After reading over your guys' posts, taking it to heart and thinking it through a little, I realized you guys are right. I am going to take a deep, deeeeep, deeeeeeep breath (God knows I'll need it) and try join back into this discussion and try to hash things out. But as you guys are seeing, they're rather difficult to communicate with. The rationale whenever you guys try to explain anything to them is pretty much "That's stupid and the three of us are against it, and that's 3 to 1. You lose!" Eye roll! But anyways, as Aussie said, a departure only gives them free reign to carry on in the bullying madness, so I'm going to take a deep breath and join you two back in discussion. Thanks Aussie and Cyphoid. I truly appreciate it. =D AmericanDad86 (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

@AmericanDad86: and @Cyphoidbomb: - I thought you might be interested to know that, at Talk:List of American Dad! episodes#LETS FIX SEASON 1 AND 2 PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!! I found an interesting link. It's now dead but I found an archived version that lists all episodes up to season 10 episode 8. It's from Fox's website, so it's authoritative, and it confirms that the current episode list is correct, at least for the first 160 episodes. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I see that. So they, like Threes Company, considered the first few eps as a season, ostensibly because it was a mid season replacement or a short order. I do want to be sure though that we are not simply trying to justify the existing "one greater" order--if the networks are recategorizing or condensing the seasons, then isn't that worth considering, especially if sourced? My main point of contention has been that if there's a discrepancy, we should explain it clearly and not just promote our POVs. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 12:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree, especially since rewriting history seems to be the rage now with the networks. It all needs to be documented somewhere, so that we understand why there are discrepancies. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes! Good find, Aussie. But you just know Larry, Mo, and Curly are going to argue "Well but Fox doesn't own the show anymore. So that is outdated." The fact that they've owned the show for 10 years I guess makes them an irrelevant source to the three stooges. Wikipedia shouldn't have to go through a major overhaul every time a network goes back and forth between which of the two models it would like to use, so long as we're explaining the discrepancy that should be enough. Editors take a lot of time out of their schedules to make this website look just so without it being switched every time a few loudmouths like these three want their way. AmericanDad86 (talk) 17:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Calming breaths...calming breaths...

We need to be open to whatever the best version of this article is, whether it be the "one less" version or the "one more" version. It's not about us. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb, who are you to tell me "calming breaths" when you yourself just referred to the three users in question rather mockingly as "Three's Company"? Please calm down yourself and don't refer to them in such a metaphorical terms that can be seen as mocking. Also, I didn't see you peeping a word to WattleBird about "calming breaths" when he used pejoratives like "retarded" and "stupid" in response to your listing of options. I then had jumped in and defended you. But you have no problem telling Aussie that he needs to consider the other side and me to calm down.

Anyways Cyphod, I'm not even sure what your stance is. You've stated above that your one and only contention is really that the discrepancy be explained. I have already explained the discrepancy in detail at the American Dad! article as shown here. So in that case, your concerns have been satisfied this whole time. Am I correct? AmericanDad86 (talk) 18:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Clearly I have offended you, when that was not my intention. I apologize. You seemed very frustrated and I was doing my part to help focus the conversation on the subject and not on mocking the other participants. Three's Company is an American TV series that had a 6 episode first season. I was drawing a direct comparison between Three's Company's short first season and the 7 episode short first season of American Dad, which Fox was considering. "They" = Fox, not the other editors. You have misinterpreted my statement. As for what my stance is, I can't say I have a perspective one way or another. I entered the conversation because I was concerned it was becoming a popularity contest. This is the sort of thing I look up to Aussie for being able to figure out reasonably. If the "one less" version can be sourced and will be easier to understand down the line, so be it. If the "one greater" version makes more sense and can be sourced, so be it. I don't have a dog in this fight. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I can understand AmericanDad86's frustration. I had the same thing happen at Terra Nova (TV series) last year when three editors decided to change the episode numbering after declaring consensus only 3 hours into a discussion.[7] There were so stubborn they refused to participate in a DRN discussion or even accept the comments made by outside editors at a subsequent RfC so, for now, the episode list reflects WP:OR. I don't want another series to go down that path. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I totally get the frustration as well. I guess I haven't properly demonstrated that. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey Aussie. I thought I should let you know that the debate at American Dad seems to finally be complete. A source has been provided that TBS is following the "one-more" season model, which is the way it has been here at Wikipedia. Additionally, they're not using any "3-episode season/12th season" either. Rather, they're categorizing the 3 Fox episodes as part of the 15-episode TBS season. So at last that debate is a done deal. Here's a barnstar for your excellence in motivation throughout that confusion. AmericanDad86 (talk) 22:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

		The Wikipedia Motivation Barnstar
		message AmericanDad86 (talk) 22:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

That would be consistent with the link that I provided above. It's good news because it means a lot less work. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Cast lists in TV article and List of Characters articles

Thanks for your comments at Talk:Person_of_Interest_(TV_series)#Regular_cast_order. I appreciate the clarification. I hope you don't mind troubling you for another opinion and/or links to other appropriate policies. In a tv article one starts with a cast list in the main article. When that castlists expands its description and gets large, a separate "list of chars" article is sometimes created. When that happens the list in the main article is removed or replaced with just bulleted list or table with a link to the "list of char" article. Is there a policy / guidelines on how much should be in the main series article once that "list of" article is created. It seems redundant to keep both up-to-date. That is the general info I am asking about, in particular, this arose due to the large segment in Person_of_Interest_(TV_series)#Cast_and_characters even though there is even a full article at List_of_Person_of_Interest_characters. Granted, they both need work, but it would seem to make sense to me to focus on one or the other (keep in main and delete "list of" or fix/correct the "list of" and have some form of summary in the main article). There has been some reluctance from other editors since a separate list means an extra click. I want to understand the guidelines so I am more informed of them and how much leeway editors have and get some insight from your experience and suggestions. If you have any other suggestions/comments in particular for those articles, instead of just commenting to me, it may be helpful to comment on the talk page(s) with those suggestions. I am not sure all the editors will listen, but I think enough will to make a difference. Thanks for any help (and I apologize if I overstepped in asking for comments). Take care.AbramTerger (talk) 21:19, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

About my edits.

Hello, AussieLegend?

Listen, I have a question to ask you. How did you know I added the Region 4 DVD release date for the Hawaii Five-0: The Fourth Season, so why did you remove the DVD release dates? I mean, what the hell? Are you watching my every edit and every move I do on these articles? I mean, seriously tell me why are you doing this? And I noticed you removed the DVD release dates for Hawaii Five-0 just after I added the Region 4 DVD release date on the TV series. Look, I don't appreciate you removing overview DVD release dates on these articles as you did on NCIS, NCIS: Los Angeles, NCIS: New Orleans, Bones, and Person Of Interest, but listen, I'm not trying to disrespect or be mean to you, but are you really serious about this whole drama and situation? Look, on Wikpedia, is this DVD release dates going to be deleted forever from now on? Now, are you planning to create an article of the home video releases for the DVD's as you did removed the overview for NCIS, NCIS: Los Angeles, NCIS: New Orleans, Person of Interest, Hawaii Five-0, and Bones? Please, I'm begging you to tell me what's going on here on this whole situation. Please contact me immediately on my talk page when you get this message as soon as possible, thank you.

IceColdKillerz103 (talk) 05:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The article is on my watch list so I'm notified of edits to the page. As I told you last time you asked about series overview tables,[8] (and previously on your talk page) per WP:TVOVERVIEW, home video releases don't belong in series overview tables. NCIS and NCIS: Los Angeles have articles dedicated to home media, List of NCIS home video releases and List of NCIS: Los Angeles home video releases respectively. Both of these are linked to from their respective series articles and Template:NCIS television. We don't really need more listings of either. I'm sorry that you don't appreciate removal of the home media information from series overview tables but the change to the MOS was the result of consensus after a long discussion. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

You may be interested...

I've created the page on Operation Okra. Feel free to contribute to the article. -Keepdry (talk) 08:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Images belonging to the Federal Government

Hey AussieLegend

I would like to ask you what is the policy surrounding images belonging to the Aussie Government and I would also like to thank you for fixing up my picture regarding ocean currents. Sorry for the extra work!

Cheers, Luxure (talk) 07:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The government policy is pretty much what is shown here but, because there are some images that aren't covered by CC 3.0, each has to be checked. That's what was confusing about the image that you uploaded. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Tommy Pickles and The Great White Thing may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

{{Reflist]}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Selena Gomez

Selena gomez - Thewormsplayer (talk) 15:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you please tell me why you reverted my edit on her page? If you did not notice, she is a singer, and therefore she needs a discography paragraph on her page. I see you dislike vandals, but this ain't vandalism, it is --Thewormsplayer (talk) 15:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say that your entry was vandalism, but this is edit-warring. What I said in my edit summary was that we already have a separate discography article. We actually have two for Gomez at Selena Gomez discography and Selena Gomez & the Scene discography. That's where all of the discography information is. We don't cherry pick one or two items from the discography articles and mention them in the main article because it's redundant to do so. This is explained in the "See also" section in a note before all of the links. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

List of The Big Bang Theory characters

I'm sorry, but I really don't have the time. I've greatly reduced my Wikipedia work since this past April, since it was taking up too much of my time, as well as other reasons. My large-scale work is more sporadic, though I did remove a bunch of uncited editor OR and other crufty stuff from the Penny article, which I see you tweaked; make sure you keep an eye on that one, because a couple of editors, I notice, primarily Wllmlos, have been trying to restore info that I removed on Penny's selfishness. I just reverted their restoration of that just now, and left messages on their talk pages. As for the list article (Hey, someone added my Wil Wheaton photo to it!), it looks way too vast for me to attack it any time soon, due to work and other obligations. Sorry. Nightscream (talk) 05:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Airdate vs air date

Hello. I known this may seem like a silly question, but I am not sure on this one. I have not seen any consistency with the use of this word. I was trying to figure out if it should be written as "airdate" or "air date". It probably would be better to just use it one way. It seems more common to say "airdate" though. SAJ (T) 18:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Somebody once told me that "airdate" is a valid word in the US but it's normally spelled "air date" in other countries. Since it's also valid to write "air date" in the US, it seems more sensible to use that spelling as that's recognised evrywhere. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Airdate is a legit word in American English. We have a lot of articles that use language that's spelt differently elsewhere. Isn't that why we have templates such as Template:Use American English? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of the English variant used in the article, if there's an internationally accepted spelling available, it's best to use that. "Airdate" is only acceptable in the US, where theyjustlovetocombinewordsbyforgettingspaces, but "air" and "date" are acceptable spellings in every English variant. Instead of using the correct spelling "gaol", "jail" is now accepted in Australian articles because the Macquarie Dictionary people still haven't learned how to switch to the Australian spell checker, and "jail" has become an accepted spelling in Australia so it's used because it is internationally accepted. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:24, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Well! I never! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

You should try it. It's fun. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) My eye just fell on this. Actually, airdate is not a compound word in American English either, but has become commonplace lazy spelling. You can't trust dictionary.com as far as you can throw it. Air date is correct. --Drmargi (talk) 17:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

It's a playable word in Scrabble. And Merriam-Webster supports it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Everything is a playable word in scrabble these days. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

First impression

Hey, take a look at this user's talkspace and SPI prose example and tell me what your first impressions are: [9] (Please and thank you.) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Seems very similar to somebody we both know. If it is then claiming to be one of the stars of Trenderas is a concern. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Lara has been blocked. I noticed a very peculiar exchange here. To me, it sounds like one person having a conversation with himself, but I agree there's only a flimsy intersection between telenovelas and Filipino soaps. My paranoid gut suggests these are all the same people, but I don't know that with any level of certainty. McV has changed names at least once, and has an alternative account somewhere. Just sayin'. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Changing names thinking that this will hide a previous history, talking to with one's sock to make it look like they're not related, pretending to be somebody they aren't - Surely these are thing people do not do? Seriously, some just don't get the message. I battled The Verizon vandal™ for many months before a filter was added to Wikipedia to get rid of it. Like all sockpuppets, vandals etc they all make the same mistakes and there are similar, unrelated edits as well as similar, very related edits. Sometimes you mistake one for another but usually you're at least right that they need to be gone. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Although I have a paranoid suspicion, I'm far from convinced. The sock report for Lara doesn't seem consistent with this other user. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

MY Bob Barker

Its not disruptive, it is true! It was said on the show Whale Wars by Peter Hammerstedt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldonegal5 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

You have been told numerous times that the article contains an authoritative source supporting the speed of 18kn so what someone said is irrelevant. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The Real Housewives of Orange County

I got your message on my page. I have to be honest with you. The content that was written there before was simply deleted. I found it annoying considering I and a few others have edited and wrote that whole paragraph and was there for quite some weeks while it was being added on to when new information regarding Real Housewives of Orange County [10][11][12] involving casting news was leaked to the press. I just find it very frustrating that a well written and truthful paragraph with trusted sources with no bias was deleted and now it is not allowed to be put back in suddenly.

(Powerpokmon (talk) 02:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC))

That it was able to remain in the article simply means that no observant editor who was familiar with our guidelines and policies had noticed it. It's certainly not a reason to keep the content in the article. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I am getting quite annoyed with you. First it was the Real Housewives of Orange County, now it's the Real Housewives of Atlanta. Why did you take out Natalie Williams and Mynique Smith from the table even though there is clear proof that they did make quest appearances in season 6. That was backed up by sources. Is my true work not being appreciated for some unknown reason? Seems like it. I'm ready to quit. (Powerpokmon (talk) 21:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC))

Well Powerpokmon, I'm getting annoyed at the way you keep adding posts to the top of my talk page instead of adding a section at the end. To answer your question about The Real Housewives of Atlanta, I didn't remove anything from the table.[13] That was done by another editor.[14] --AussieLegend (✉) 04:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

M.Eng.

MOS:ACRO states "Common exceptions to this rule are post-nominal initials because writing them out in full would cause clutter." Clarityfiend (talk) 09:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you arguing that "Master of Engineering" instead of "M.Eng." is clutter? It's a difference of only 14 characters. Readers shouldn't have to go to a different article to find out what an obscure acronym means. I'm not sure what you mean by this edit summary. PhD is specifically listed at MOS:ACRO as a widely used acronym. M.Eng. and MA are not. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Start date question

I understand only one instance of {{Start date}} can be used in a table row. Would {{dts}} be acceptable instead for secondary usage? Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I suspect so but Pigsonthewing might be a better person to ask on this. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:34, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez: Probably; but what's the page? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:34, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

List of Wander Over Yonder episodes --AussieLegend (✉) 16:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

"Start date" is in categories templates generating... hAtom, hCalendars, hCards. "dts" isn't in any of those categories so likely won't cause the conflict of multiple use of hidden CSS microformats in the same table row. Of course in List of Wander Over Yonder episodes where this might be used that isn't a sortable table so only benefit would be to potentially head off an edit issue with the roving IP from Tim's Cellular in Brazil who has been persistently adding the second "Start date" to the rows. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Series overview

Nowhere does it say "No. of episodes" is unacceptable. It also does not say anywhere that "Episodes" alone has to be used. Grapesoda22 (talk) 02:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Nowhere does WP:TVUPCOMING say "No. of episodes" is acceptable. The headings in the examples at WP:TVUPCOMING were specifically chosen so that we could have consistency across articles with these tables. Note that WP:TVUPCOMING says "the basic overview table should contain", "the overview should resemble the following", and "the fully-expanded overview should resemble this format". This really means "format the table like this using these headings unless there is good reason not to". "No. of" is redundant. These are likely the reasons that another editor has been reverting you. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't see it as redundant. I think it's worth at least discussing a little before just shooting down the notion.Grapesoda22 (talk) 04:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

By all means, discuss it at MOS:TV, but follow what the MOS currently says until there is consensus not to. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

New question

I've been removing those tables from articles of shows with limited episodes, were the entire table fits on the main page. Recently I've been getting yelled at for removing the series overview from the Black Jesus page, a show with only ten episodes. Am I right or wrong here? Grapesoda22 (talk) 23:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Koala15 is a good editor, but he has a history of irrationally digging his heels in when things change, and he has previously dismissed new guidelines as if they didn't exist. I wish he would stop doing that, and I am pinging him in the hope he will read this and grant me my wish. The new guidelines suggest that when a series has 2 or more episodes, it makes sense to summarize with a series overview. I don't see the need to summarize something that is less than a season long. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the harm of having a series overview for one season. I have never heard of this guideline. Koala15 (talk) 00:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I didn't want to get anyone in trouble or start a fight, I just don't think a series overview for 1 season is worth while. Grapesoda22 (talk) 01:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

As Cyphoidbomb has said, WP:TVOVERVIEW suggests that when a series has two or more seasons, a series overview table may exist. It doesn't harm anyone to have a series overview table when a series has a single season, but it's not necessary and can be rather pointless. However, removing tables "from articles of shows with limited episodes, were the entire table fits on the main page"[sic] as Grapesoda22 did at Hotel Hell,[15] is not appropriate. WP:TVOVERVIEW supports inclusion in such articles - "If a program's episode list is at the main article, the series overview should be presented at the top of the episode list". That edit also left a significant amount of whitespace above the table, so it wasn't a productive removal. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Koala15, your claim that you have not heard of this guideline is absurd, as it was a central point of discussion on your talk page slightly over a month ago: [16]. You two need to start participating at WikiProject Television. It's ridiculous that you're both so prolific, and you both contribute good data, yet neither of you care to weigh in on issues that affect you and your interests. Wikipedia is a community project, not a solo venture. Nobody can force you to participate, but the project will be richer if you both participated. Your continued silence is not adding diverse opinions to community issues. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Alright I won't remove tables with 2+ tables again.Grapesoda22 (talk) 03:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Sydney Climate Section

Hi,

Recently, User:Zv92 has been changing the details and info of the Sydney Climate section. I myself am not a fan of these changes and I have reverted them. The user did not wish to listen and undid my changes. Please note that the version which I prefer was the stable version for many years. There are also minor factual inaccuracies as well.

This is my preferred version here

And this is Zv92's version here

Could you please compare and tell me which version you prefer

Cheers, Luxure Σ 05:07, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

This is something that you and Zv92 need to discusss on the talk page. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

OK. Which version do you propose to stand? Luxure Σ 06:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Must be speaking to myself. Which version do you propose stand before consensus is reached? Luxure Σ 11:16, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time deciding. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Wander Over Yonder

Hello,

Thanks for cleaning up both the articles and categories for this Disney show. A lot of times fans can, in their enthusiasm, create too much content without the necessary notability. That's why I've supported all of your CFD deletion nominations.

While you're cleaning up categories, be careful to avoid emptying categories and then nominating them for a speedy deletion because they are (now) empty. That shortcut makes it difficult for other editors to assess nominations. Sorry if I came off as overly Bureaucratic; I just want the category to get a fair shake before it's deleted. RevelationDirect (talk) 20:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

It's fairly common sense that a category with only two members is redundant. We don't really need to go through the time and effort of a CfD in such cases. Emptying such cats and getting them deleted using CSD#1 is a quite valid process to use. You could say that it's analogous to PROD. A CfD can actually be detrimental. If a cat is deleted at CfD, it's gone forever. Editors can have a hell of a time getting categories recreated in the eventuality that there is a need for the cat. If it's speedied, it can usually just be recreated. I had to do that myself when an overzealous admin decided to delete an entire, useful, category structure simply because it had been created by a sockpuppet. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:14, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Redirects were necessary

No consensus is needed for pages that fail WP:GNG and have multiple issues that are not getting fixed and had been noted for more then a year as all pages that deal with That '70s Show characters was done, Donna Pinciotti, Michael Kelso and Red Forman's were recent. So you're arguments were mute and redirects were restored on some of the characters because it would not let me restore the redirects on others.

Also, just cause you do not agree does not mean the redirects were wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.121.125.51 (talk • contribs) 04:03, 10 November 2014‎ (UTC)

All of the articles have previously been discussed and there is opposition to deletion. When there is opposition to deletion, consensus is indeed required. You can't arbitrarily decide to ignore the wishes of others. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

You say that but I do not believe you. Also I have the right to nominate pages for deletion and you do not have the right to stop me and remove my deletion nominations just because you do not agree with it. You must fix the page not remove the Afd nomination. 50.121.125.51 (talk) 04:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, with a proposed deletion, AussieLegend—any editor, for that matter–does have the right to remove the nomination and contest the deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 04:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Excuse my french but that's bullshit. This is the problem with wikipedia you guys pick and choose on crap. Now all the goddamn pages on characters about That '70s Show fail WP:GNG and should be redirected to the main page but this user wants to argue it because he doesn't like it and then when I nominate it for deletion he can stop it when it fails WP:GNG? That's bullshit and should not be allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.121.125.51 (talk) 04:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome to start a discussion per WP:Articles for deletion. If you need technical assistance (since, as an unregistered user, you can't create the discussion page), please let me know. —C.Fred (talk) 04:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Don't you have to have an account to do that? Also, Aussie do not go posting threats like you did here on my talk page to get your way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.121.125.51 (talk) 05:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

You have reverted 3 times in a little over an hour at Midge and Bob Pinciotti. This is edit-warring and you are 1 revert away from breaching the three-revert rule. Breaching the three-revert rule may result in you being blocked from editing so a warning was more than warranted. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the help. I appreciate it. I've a discussion up at the moment over at ANI, I think there may be more here than meets the eye, but that's me. I've included you only because you've interacted with the isp, so if you'd like you can weigh in there. I do not expect anything will come of it, but I like to have some oversight in these matters since I am a content contributor first and an admin second, such as it were. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I suspect there's a bit more to this as well. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Finealt? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC)